Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
It is murder.
- Leonard Cohen

   With Ayn Rand, all things are possible. Let's just take the "Hierarchy of Values" as one example.

The "Hierarchy of Values" maintains that if you "value" A over B, you should "choose" A.

If you "value" B over A, you should "choose" B.

("Value" being "that which one acts to gain or keep" -- the vacuousness and absurdity of all this defies belief but let's continue.)

There are no standards indicating what you should choose or how to choose -- just "choice".

Of course, there are a few caveats: we mustn't be "whim worshippers"; we mustn't be "mindless"; we mustn't be "cannibals" or "witch doctors" or "mystics", or "second handers" or "social metaphysicians", or a whole litany of other undefined insult-terms, all of which are as true of the Objectivists as anyone else. 


Thus, if I "value" raping  and murdering little BOYS over little GIRLS, I should rape and murder little BOYS.
But if I  "value" raping  and murdering little GIRLS over little BOYS, I should rape and murder little GIRLS.

(I can hear the screams of indignation: isn't this an "initiation of the use of force", I hear you say?)

Am I exaggerationg? I don't think so. It's not even a reductio ad absurdum.
I think we're there now.
The maniacal Objectivist obsession with abortion is proof of it.

For example, if it can seriously be argued  -- I don't believe that Rand ever quite reached this extreme of insanity, but her followers, the "Libertarians", certainly did, for example, Murray Rothbard and many other respected Libertarian "intellectuals" --

-- that a foetus has "initiated the use of force" by gestating in its mother's womb -- a situation for which it can hardly be held responsible --

(let me break off here and repeat this just one more time to be absolutely certain that we understand what is being said here --

-- and don't forget: these people are serious):

If it can seriously be argued that:
-- the foetus is an "intruder";
-- the foetus is a "trespasser";
-- comparable to a burglar, a thief in the night, a prowler;

If it can seriously be argued that:
- the foetus has "occupied" its mother's body "without her consent" -- like a squatter;
-- by gestating in its mother's womb -- which is, of course, her "private property" according to the theory of absolute "property rights";    

-- (little bit late to put up the "Keep Out" sign now, wouldn't you think?) --


-- the foetus is guilty of "initiating the use of force";
-- and can therefore be "expelled", which means killed.  The Libertarians admit this.

Now: all I am saying at this point is -- just playing Devil's Advocate here -- that if a foetus can be said to be "guilty of initiating the use of force" by gestating in its mother's womb, then why can't children be said to be "guilty of initiating the use of force" by being attractive to perverts?

The child
"initiated the use of force", therefore the child can be killed. Why not?

In actual fact, minus the pretentiousness and absurd jargon, this sort of assertion is already commonly made by child molesters and rapists -- almost invariably Moslem immigrants
-- the same "poor, desperate, asylum seekers" [tragic music, violins] and " refugees" just "looking for a better life" (at our expense and in violation of all our laws)
-- whom we absolutely must take in -- according to Ayn Rand and all the other "rational Objectivists" --
-- without any criminal background checks, health checks, or ID checks; no deportations, nothing, regardless of their numbers or the gravity of the crimes they commit -- just endless freebies and handouts, forever and ever, Amen!

It's nice to know the Muzzies are in such "rational" company.
Why didn't Rand go to Israel and tell the Jews to do these things? She'd have been tarred and feathered.


Now. What is the "rational" Objectivist response to obvious questions of this kind (or any other kind)?
It is to insult the questioner

In this case, you would nearly always be accused of wishing to rape and murder school children yourself.
This would usually be preceded by the words, "Boy, is that an insight into your mind!"

This is the influence of Freudianism on the Objectivists.
A question -- any question -- is always treated as a confession of guilt.
This is the "rational" method of Objectivists at all times.


Jesus: I can walk on water.
Doubting Thomas: Gee, golly, really?
Jesus: Well, maybe you can't walk on water (withering contempt). 

Athlete: I can do a nine-foot pole vault.
Sports fan: Really?
Athlete: Well, maybe you can't do a nine-foot pole vault (withering contempt).

These are not the methods of intellectually serious people.

Note the manner in which the Objectivists and libertarians constantly move the goal posts around in any way they like: a foetus gestating in its mother's womb is an intruder who can be expelled, which means killed, but illegal immigrants (who are criminals by both definition and avocation) are "seeking a better life", and must be accepted by the billions, regardless of any other consideration -- there is no limit -- although none of them would ever be tolerated in Israel, of which Rand was a fanatical supporter.
This is "reason"?
This is "objective"?
This is "self-interest"?
Objectivism is not only a "religion of immoralism", it is a religion of irrationality.
It is 100% self-contradictory, arbitrary and subjective. There is nothing "objective" about it.

Back to philosophical index